How the Human Race Began

In the third chapter of the gospel of Luke there is a list of Jesus Christs ancestors. His descent is traced back through David, Abraham and Noah to "Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."1

Who was this Adam? We open our Bibles at Genesis chapter ~ and read of his creation as the very first man. We turn over to chapter 3 and read that his wife was "the mother of all living". If our Bible is an old-fashioned edition we see the date at the top of the page:

4004 B.C.

Then we shake our heads. How can we possibly believe this? Wasnt there already a flourishing civilisation in Egypt in 4004 B.C.? Were not cave men living in the south of France in ten or twenty thousand B.C.? And various kinds of shaggy ape-men, long before that?

This is a very real problem. It is probably the biggest, most serious problem that the Bible-believing Christian has to face. But even so, with patience and careful thought a solution can be found.

One thing we dare not do. We must not take the easy way out and say, "Adam was just a myth." That way lies disaster.

I have tried to show throughout this book that we must let the Bible speak for itself. We must not twist it, to make it mean what we think it ought to have said. We must let it make its own message clear to us.

It is necessary to make due allowance for figures of speech in the Bible. We must not treat poetry as if it were prose, or parables as if they were literal truth. We need to be very, very careful not to read the Bible as if it had been written by Englishmen; instead, we must read it in the light of the Hebrew idiom that shines through into the English translation.

And, above all, we simply must let the New Testament provide us with the key to the Old. If we doubt what Jesus and His apostles taught about the Old Testament, we shall end up doubting them in other matters too. Our faith will then prove to be a house built on sand.

So we have to begin with the question: what does the New Testament say about Adam?

The answer is sharply defined, clear and unmistakable.

Adam was a real person. He and his wife, Eve, were the ancestors of the whole human race.

Several lines of evidence lead to this conclusion. There are the words quoted from Lukes Gospel in the first paragraph of this chapter.1 There is the way that Jesus referred to Adam and Eve. He spoke of them in the same literal way as the other historical characters of the Old Testament.2

Above all, there is the teaching of Paul. As was shown in Chapter 14, his whole teaching about sin and death and salvation had two foundation stones. One was a historical Adam, whose sin started a pattern of sinfulness that has affected all his descendants. The other was a historical Jesus, who came to save some of the sons of Adam from sin and death, and give them everlasting life.3

Remove one of those twin foundations and the whole structure of Christianity collapses. If Adams sin was a myth, then Christs righteousness might have been a myth, too.

One thing is certain: Christianity-that is, real Christianity, Biblical Christianity, the Christianity of Christ and His apostles-starts with the sad, true story of events in the Garden of Eden.

This is our starting point. Within this framework we must look for a solution to our problem.

A number of solutions have been suggested, but I shall not list them all. Most of them have serious snags attached. The one I shall describe is the one that seems most reasonable to me.

It appeals to me for two reasons. First and foremost, it is based upon careful Bible exposition, and (unlike some of the other proposed solutions) not merely upon a superficial reading of the English text. Secondly, it makes better scientific sense than any other suggestion that has come my way.

How Long Ago Was Adam?

In a way, the problem is largely an artificial one. That date, 4004 B.C., is not a part of the original Bible at all. It was put there in the seventeenth century by Archbishop Ussher, who worked out what he thought was the actual date of creation.

Here and there the Bible fails to supply the exact figures the Archbishop needed for his calculations. So he had to make a few assumptions. But for a long time most Bible-believers thought that he was right to within a century or two.

Many Bible-believers still think so. And this is at the root of our problem. Because it was shown more than eighty years ago that the Archbishop was probably wrong, not by hundreds but by thousands of years.

This was clearly demonstrated by a Bible-believing scholar, W. H.Green.4 His discoveries were taken up and amplified by Urquhart, in a book crammed with first-class Biblical exposition.5 Summaries of these ideas can be found in several more recent books.6

These Bible students stressed what has been said repeatedly in this book: the Bible was written by Hebrews, who looked at things differently from ourselves. They certainly did not write history in quite the same way as western historians. They knew what they meant, and so did their original readers, but we can easily reach wrong conclusions if we read Hebrew history wearing European spectacles.

For example, when Hebrew writers gave a genealogy (that is, a family tree) they would sometimes-perhaps quite often-skip a generation or two. In Matthews account of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, it says that "Joram begat Uzziah".7 Yet Joram was actually the great-great-grandfather of Uzziah, as the Old Testament shows. Matthew deliberately skips over a very black period in Jewish history.

In the same passage Matthew says there were fourteen generations from the carrying away into Babylon to Christ.8 Yet, as we would count generations, there are only thirteen in Matthews list.9 There are, however, fourteen names; perhaps Matthew reached his total by counting both Mary, the mother, and Joseph, the step-father, of Jesus.

Thus when Matthew speaks of "generations" he evidently means, "officially reckonable generations"-not actual generations, as we would regard them. Those men whose names were worthy of inclusion went in; those whose names were deemed unsuitable were left out. Sometimes the reason for these omissions is apparent, sometimes not.

The Book of Ezra provides us with another example. In quoting his own genealogy, Ezra lists sixteen generations between himself and Aaron.10 This covers a period of about a thousand years. Obviously Ezra, too, is concerned only with the "officially reckonable" names.

Thus we must not regard a Biblical genealogy as a complete record, but as a highly selective one. We can sometimes learn lessons by noting what is left out, and what is kept in.

There are signs that the genealogies in the early part of Genesis are selective, too. Genesis says: "Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat (the father of) Sala."11 The words in brackets are not in Genesis, but they appear to bring out the literal truth of the situation. For we learn from the New Testament that Arphaxad was the grandfather of Sala.12

Evidently Cainan, the father of Sala, was not fit to be included in the "reckonable genealogy". This would explain why his name was left out of the Hebrew text of Genesis, although the Jews knew of his existence, because they included him in their Greek translation of Genesis. How many other generations are missed out of the early chapters of the Old Testament? We have no way of telling.

This is not the only problem in trying to "date" Adam. The Hebrews had a habit of listing the most important son in a family first, not the eldest.

For example, Genesis says that, "Terah lived seventy years and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran."13 But by comparing several Bible passages14 and doing a little arithmetic, we discover that Terah was at least 130 when Abram was born. So the passage quoted above apparently means: "Terah lived seventy years and begat the first of his sons, of whom Abram (though not the first) is the most important."

Similar reasoning15 leads to the conclusion that Genesis ii, verse 10, quotes the age of Shem when his eldest son was born, but gives the name of the most important son, instead of the (presumably unworthy) eldest son.

Consequently we cannot possibly date the Flood, or the Garden of Eden, from genealogies in Genesis. They were not given us for this purpose. The Biblical evidence shows that they were typical Hebrew genealogies, not exhaustive lists like those a European historian would compile.

They give only the names of the "reckonable" men. Instead of naming the literal firstborn sons, they name the "reckonable" firstborn.16 We can learn moral lessons from this sort of genealogy; that is why the Hebrews kept them. But one thing we cannot do is to build up a calendar of early Old Testament history.

So now we can answer the question: how long ago was Adam? The answer is that we do not know. The Bible does not tell us.

How Good is Modern Anthropology"?

Anthropology is the name of a branch of science. It is concerned with the study of Man. The branch of it which is concerned with prehistoric Man is called palaeoanthropology. This is the branch we are concerned with here. To avoid using such an awful mouthful writers often just call it anthropology.

Most anthropologists put on a charming front when they face the general public. To read their popular books you would think they knew a great deal about the origins of mankind.

But if you go behind the scenes and see what they say to each other, a very different picture emerges. An eminent anthropologist, F. Bordes, the Professor of Pleistocene Geology and Prehistory at Bordeaux University in France, published a long letter in a scientific journal in 1969.

Here are a few extracts.

" If some of them [English and American anthropologists] consider the European thought to be musty, we Europeans consider their theories as good as science-fiction, entertaining, but not always true....

"I agree we need a sound theoretical framework, but only if it is not contrary to facts. Facts about European prehistory are the weak point of Anglo-Saxon anthropologists....

" I am rewriting my course on human palaeontology [the study of fossil Man] which will be very different from what it was last year. Now that I have seen new facts, not theories."17

Not very encouraging reading for the student about to go to university to study anthropology. He had better choose his college carefully, to avoid being taught what another college calls "science fiction". And whatever college he chooses, next years course may be entirely different from last years!

And this is not such an overstatement as it sounds. Modern anthropology is full of changing, controversial theories. It has to be, because our actual knowledge about ancient man is woefully incomplete. Just how incomplete it is can be seen by comparing the two pictures of Zinjanthropus facing page 217.

Zinjanthropus is the name given by Dr. L. S. B. Leakey to a fossil he found in Olduvai Gorge, Kenya. Scientists are still arguing whether he was one of our ancestors or not.

What did old Zinjy look like? A kind-hearted professor in need of a shave, as Dr. Leakeys picture suggests? Or a savage ape on the warpath, as would appear from Dr. Oakleys picture? Nobody knows.

The scientists seem to think that there is no harm is guessing. Neither would there be, if only they made it plain to the general public that they were guessing. Unfortunately the popular press and the broadcasting media seem to have convinced the general public that the anthropologists know most of the answers. And this is so misleading that it verges on deceit.

In fact, anthropology is about the most dubious branch of science there is. Anthropologists were warned of this not long ago by one of themselves, Dr. Bernard G. Campbell. Although accepting evolution, Dr. Campbell was clearly unhappy about the state anthropology was in.

His paper, "Science and Human Evolution", was published in Nature, which is one of the most important scientific journals in the world.

He declared that anthropologists have frequently behaved in a most unscientific way. Prejudice has often led them to reach false conclusions, and human vanity has also sometimes led them astray. He concluded with a stirring appeal to his fellow anthropologists to behave more scientifically in future.

Here are just a few of his pointed remarks.

"Even in other fields of scientific research the investigator is subject to a host of prejudices. - . . How much more serious this problem is in anthropological research, when man investigates himself. -

" Aberration resulting from the subjectivity of observation may be so serious as to render interpretation of fossil data of no value to science. [He illustrated this accusation by the two pictures of Zinjanthropus, reproduced in this book facing page 217.]

"An understanding and strict use of scientific method may help us to avoid some of the problems which arise in palaeoanthropology Since improvement in method, and better presentation of observation and hypothesis are open to palaeoanthropologists, it would be the height of folly to ignore them."18

In 1972 a scientific textbook was published, called The Origin of Homo Sapiens. It contained papers by a number of leading anthropologists. What they wrote is so full of uncertainty that a scientist reviewing the book said:

" Perhaps it is good to have on record that we still dont know what modern man is, still less where he came from."19

Dating the Past

Most laymen are aware that scientists have various methods of estimating the age of fossils. But they are usually unaware of the real facts about these scientific methods.

Popular science writers are largely to blame for this, because of the glib way they speak of ancient dates. The following statement is a typical example. It occurred in a popular magazine article.

" Ash deposits in Chinese caves indicate that fire had been tamed as early as 360,000 years ago."20

That figure of 360,000 years creates a completely false impression. If you asked a man, "How long is this garden?" and he replied, "About a quarter of a mile," you would know that he was only making a rough estimate. But if he replied, "360 yards," you would assume that he really knew the true length, to within a few yards.

Similarly, when popular writers quote figures like "360,000 years", the public unconsciously assumes that the date is known quite accurately. But scientists know that this is not so. Many methods of dating the remote past are in use, and ever) one of them has disadvantages.

Several of the methods make use of the traces of radioactive elements which are present in rocks and fossils. Radioactive elements change their nature slowly, in a remarkably steady fashion. They can be likened to clocks that have been running down for some time.

By studying just how far "run down" they are, scientists can calculate how long it must be since they were first "wound up".

Scientists using these methods, however, find that all is not plain sailing. They can never be quite sure how much radioactive material was present in the beginning. Another problem is that some foreign matter may have soaked in to contaminate the specimen. In other words, they never know whether the "clock" was "fully wound up" in the first place, or whether it has been given a few extra "winds" in the meantime.

Because of the uncertainties involved in all methods of dating, a large number of dates that were accepted a few years ago are now regarded as highly dubious. Scientific journals bristle with papers pointing out mistakes that have been made in this field.

The most popular method for estimating "recent" dates (within the past few thousand years) is called the radiocarbon method. It has taken many years of research to develop this method to a point where it can be relied upon to give accurate results.

This has been possible only because scientists were able to check their results experimentally, on objects whose age was known for certain. For example, historical records tell us that the volcano, Vesuvius, erupted suddenly in A.D. 79 and buried two Roman cities, Pompeii and Herculaneum. Consequently we know the exact age of the food left on the tables in those buried cities.

By checking their answers on such objects, radiocarbon workers were able to tell where they had gone wrong. And they often did go wrong. As recently as 1965 two experts in this field could write:

" Most laboratories are in agreement that, wherever possible, bone should not be used for radiocarbon dating.... In conclusion, it can be seen that the majority of radiocarbon dates on bone are in error." 21

For technical reasons the radiocarbon method cannot be applied to very ancient objects. The present limit of its usefulness is a very few tens of thousands of years. Beyond that, we are forced to rely on other methods that have not been developed to the same pitch of accuracy as the radiocarbon method.

Moreover, we can only check the accuracy of methods of dating the past over a limited period. Beyond about 3,000 years ago there are no objects whose age is known with anything like certainty. Beyond about 5,000 years ago all we can do is to check one method of estimating with another, and hope for the best.

Scientists are all well aware of these reasons for treating very ancient dates as only rough estimates. But there is a much more serious objection to relying on these ancient dates, which many scientists deliberately ignore.

Every method depends upon what is called "the principle of uniformitarianism". In simple terms, "uniformity" means assuming that the same conditions have existed and the same natural laws have operated all along. In other words, that the atomic "clocks", and the geological "clocks", have always ticked away at the same steady

rate.

This amounts to an assumption that God does not exist, or at least that He has left the world alone. It is obvious that if the Creator has been at work there has not been "uniformity", and that all scientific methods of dating the remote past are based upon a false foundation.

This means that many scientists are making an elementary mistake. They begin by assuming "uniformity", and hence by assuming that the Creator has not been at work. From this assumption they work out a method of dating very ancient fossils. Then they use these dates as part of an argument to "prove" that Genesis is wrong, and that there has been no Creator at work.

Thus they go right round in a circle, and end up where they started. They have to start by assuming "no creative activity", in order to end up by concluding "no Creator acting".

Closing the Gap

We have now noted two very important facts. First, the Bible does not give us enough information to enable us to say when Adam lived. Secondly, there is so much guesswork involved in anthropology that the conclusions drawn by anthropologists must be treated with great caution.

These two facts help to close the gap between the Bible and scientific knowledge.

If Adam really lived as much as ten or twelve thousand years ago, this would place him before the earliest civilisations known to archaeology. The history of fully civilised man did not begin until much later. When the uncertainties attached to scientific methods of estimating ancient dates are allowed for, there is no difficulty in regarding even the half-civilised men of the Neolithic period (the New Stone Age) as the descendants of Adam.

But what about early prehistoric man? Scientists may not have a clue what Zinjanthropus really looked like, but it is difficult to deny that the hairy gentleman may have lived long before Adam.

The real question, however, is not whether Zinjy and all the other early prehistoric "men" existed before Adam, but whether they were men in the Biblical sense of the word.

A great deal of confusion has occurred because people have not realised that the word "man" has been defined in two different ways. Anthropologists define it in one way, the Bible in another.

Dr. Leakey, the discoverer of our old friend Zinjy, has said that anthropologists define man like this:

" To qualify as man there must be reasonably good evidence suggesting that the creature probably made tools to a set and regular

pattern. "22

Notice those cautious words, "reasonably good evidence", "suggesting", and "probably". The classification is evidently based upon what the scientist thinks, not what he knows. He defines as man any creature that he thinks used tools.

Now compare with this the Bibles definition: "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him."23

In this one verse the Bible gives its definition of man twice over, because it is such an important definition. Man is a creature in Gods own image.

It is clear from the way the New Testament quotes this verse that the word "image" refers to Gods moral character, rather than His physical shape.24

In modern English, therefore, the Bibles definition of man amounts to this: man is a creature capable of serving God.

The difference between these two definitions is most important. When anthropologists speak of man, and when the Bible speaks of man, they are not necessarily speaking of the same thing.

The ability to make crude tools, or even to light fires and cook food, is evidence of intelligence. But it is not evidence of the ability to serve God. And this-not mere brain power-is what distinguishes man from the lesser animals, according to the Bible.

There is no proof that early prehistoric "man" had this ability to serve God. Consequently he can be regarded, from the Biblical standpoint, as merely a highly intelligent animal.

Moreover, there is no proof that the human race is descended from any of these early prehistoric "men". Anthropologists assert that we are descended from some of these prehistoric "men", which they classify under "Homo sapiens" (a term which includes ourselves) and earlier species of Homo.

But we must remember that this is only an opinion. And anthropologists opinions are constantly changing. Not so long ago they thought we were descended from a shaggy creature they called "Neanderthal man". Then they came to regard "Neanderthal man" as an evolutionary dead-end, an extinct creature with no direct links to the human race.

And that is how a large number of Bible-believing scientists regard early prehistoric "man" in general: as a collection of intelligent two-legged animals, long since extinct. This view has recently received powerful support from an unexpected quarter, by the discovery that there are tool-using animals alive today. Dr. Jane Goodall has found that chimpanzees in the wild state regularly use simple tools.25

Some of the views about prehistoric "man" expressed in this chapter may not agree with current scientific opinions. But they do not clash with any known scientific facts. And they do not disagree with anything the Bible tells us, either.

The Bibles teaching about the origin of mankind is beautiful in its simplicity. By a special creative act God made the first man and woman, after He had made all the rest of creation. From these two the whole human race is descended.

This explanation satisfied men and women three thousand years ago. It is still eminently sensible today. It can stand up to the critical scrutiny of our scientific age.

How can this be? Every other ancient account of creation and the origin of life reads like childish nonsense in the modern world. Why is the Bible so different?

There is an obvious answer.

The Bible is the inspired Word of God.